The Effects Of Sildenafil On The Cardiovascular Response In Men With Spinal Cord Injury At Or Above The Sixth Thoracic Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sildenafil is efficacious for erectile dysfunction in men with spinal cord injury (SCI), but can induce hypotension in neurologically intact people. Those with SCI at or above the sixth thoracic level (T6) often have pre-existing hypotension, yet the cardiovascular response to sildenafil has not been studied in this group. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of sildenafil on the cardiovascular response in men with complete SCI at or above T6. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Twenty-three SCI participants were each randomly given placebo; sildenafil, 50 mg; and sildenafil, 100 mg; separated by at least 1 week. The following were measured before administration, and hourly for 4 hours afterward: (a) blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR), both supine and sitting; and (b) perceived dizziness on a visual analog scale upon sitting. RESULTS: Analysis was done using a 4-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. No significant changes occurred with placebo. Sildenafil caused the following changes. Systolic BP changed little in thoracic spinal cord-injured (TSCI) participants, but decreased significantly (P < 0.005) in cervical spinal cord-injured (CSCI) participants. Diastolic BP decreased in all participants (P < 0.005). HR increased in the TSCI participants for 1 hour (P < 0.05), but was not altered in the CSCI participants. Dizziness increased in the TSCI participants after administration of 100 mg (P < 0.05) and in the CSCI participants after administration of 50 mg (P < 0.05). There were no adverse events or outcomes. CONCLUSION: Sildenafil induces significant hypotension in people with cervical-level injuries--more so than in thoracic-level injuries--and can cause dizziness in both populations. It should be prescribed with caution and informed consent from the patient.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".